Cases: Lodestar

Costs, Deadlines, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar: L.A. Groundwater Case Fee And Costs Awards Remanded For A Revisit By The Fifth District

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar

Variety Of Costs, Fee Entitlement, And Lodestar Issues Explored In This Unpublished Opinion.             Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, Case No. F083138 (5th Dist. Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished) was a Los Angeles-venued case which produced a global settlement complete with a provision for certain parties to bear attorney’s fees and costs by class counsel.  Class counsel

Appealability, Lodestar, Partition, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court’s Award Of Fees To Winning Beneficiaries And Property Owner In Partition Action Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Partition, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Apportionment Under Partition Statutes Is Vested Within Lower Court’s Equitable Discretion.             In Hofmann v. Hofmann, Case No. F079977 (5th Dist. July 15, 2021) (unpublished), trustee son Michael was obviously not happy when he lost a partition action to trust beneficiaries (his siblings) and the current property owner.  Beneficiaries and property owner, respectively, filed attorney’s

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Pasternack Decision Now Published

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acceptance Of A Reduced Rate From Client Does Not Preclude Attorney From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In our June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time.  Pasternack follows other California decisions

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/8 DCA Affirms Fee Award To Prevailing SLAPPing Defendant That Was Greater Than The Fees Paid For Defense By His Insurer

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

An Attorney Accepting A Reduced Rate From A Client Is Not Precluded From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing FEHA Plaintiff Only Recovering $400,800 In Fees Out Of Requested $1,064,062.70 Did Not Recover Any More On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Compensatory Award Was $575,000.             Plaintiff did prevail on some wrongful termination/FEHA claims to the tune of $575,000 in past noneconomic damages.  Plaintiff later moved to recoup $1,064,062.70 in fees (lodestar of $532,031.35 plus a 2.0 positive multiplier), with the trial judge awarding $400,800.  Both sides appealed, with plaintiff filing a cross-appeal seeking more fees. 

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multipliers: Santana Decision Now Published

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Apportionment Between Song-Beverly Act Fees/Costs And Other Causes Of Action, Where Fees Are Not Permitted, Not Necessary Where Claims Are Inextricably Intertwined.               In our September 29, 2020 post, we discussed Santana v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time.             In Santana,

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge’s Award Of $1,000 In Fees/Costs Reversed Where Requested Amount Was $164,768

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Appellate Court Needed More Of A Justification For Such A Large “Haircut.”             For readers who have followed us for some time, you would know that district judges in the Ninth Circuit have to explain “haircuts” from attorney’s fees requests which exceed 10% with some specificity.  (See, e.g., Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Allocation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Plaintiff Correctly Awarded $182,000 Under Contractual Fees Clause After Winning $455,000 In Damages After A Lengthy Court Trial

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fees Award Should Not Get Offset Against Damages, And Trial Judge Awarded Contingency Arrangement Percentage As Fees—Dispensing With The Need For Review Of Detailed Bills.             Prevailing plaintiff in Pham v. Nguyen, Case No. H044958 (6th Dist. Apr. 15, 2020) (unpublished), on the heels of winning $455,000 in damages, moved for contractual attorney’s fees.  The

Lodestar, Private Attorney General: Third District Affirms Approximate 93% Reduction To Petitioner’s Requested Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 Fee Award

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner’s Limited Success – Winning Only 1 Of Its 13 Arguments – Was Crucial Factor In Substantial Reduction From Requested $1,440,713 In Fees To $94,698.33 Even After 1.5 Multiplier Was Applied.             The Sacramento-San Juaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 was enacted to address the problems and challenges facing the Delta – the most valuable

Scroll to Top